Actually, AA did come out in fall of 1921 to Thea Malinovsky, telling her that she was Grand Duchess Anastasia, and giving her details from the last night in Ekaterinburg. Miss Malinovsky then went home and told her fiance, Doctor Chemnitz, about the whole thing. He brushed it aside with a "What else do you expect to hear in a lunatic asylum." Later, the Nachtausgabe stated that Malinovsky heard the story from AA in the fall of 1922, either because of a misprint or a deliberate changing of the date. But, as we all know, Malinovsky and AA were long separated in the fall of 1922 and could therefore not have had any conversation. Thus the Nachtausgabe's version is definitely not true.
As for Olga, she walked into the room where AA was, greeted her and talked with her in lenght. Only after she was gone, did Herluf Zahle say to AA: "Who was the lady?" AA answered: "That was my aunt Olga, Papa's sister." "Why did you not greet her by name when she walked in?" "I was so happy, I could say nothing." This version is verified by Rathleff-Keilmann, Zahle and Professor Rudnev. And Olga said, after having seen Frau Rathleff's manuscript, that her story was "quite correct".
Kastritsky said, after having seen plaster casts of AA's teeth and verified that she had inherited characteristics of the teeth: "Would I have left the Grand Duchess' teeth in that condition." And that was all he said. He did not bring his charts from Russia, and was in no position to prove anything.
FS left no proof of ever having been pregnant. Her family denied it, and her medical reports say nothing of it.
The explosion at AEG did not do any physical damage to her, this has also been verified by her family and medical reports from AEG. According to Felix S, she did not go into the hospital till some time after the explosion. If she had been physically damaged, she would have been admitted immediately.
Edward Fallows was AA's attorney, and the purpose of Grandanor was not to pay supporters. It was to pay Fallows for his services, and pay back the investors. IF there was a fortune in England. As we know, Fallows ended up bankrupting himself, and Grandanor was a total failure.
Again, you have shown no proof for your stories, just "It didn't happen or it did happen because I say so."

It's been nice to follow how you debacle. It's notable how you gather your information to persuade us all of your viewed reality. The acclamations are impressive. I see it as one who is introduced to the story at hand without having a bias about the outcome other than it portraying justice. So I keep reading and, if you will, entertained through and through. At a later time I will pry more in depth about the matter. For now I will follow your interesting portrayals. I hope you may actually get closer to unravel the mystery. Good luck.

Chat, no matter how many times you keep repeating decades old quotes and your personal version of the truth, it's NEVER going to turn real. It's over, AA has been proven not to be AN and therefore everyone who was helping her was either a liar or made a mistake. None of those old comments mean thing now.

These "quotes" happen to be testimony in court and written accounts by witnesses.

There were also quotes by people against her. In every court case, one side turns out to be wrong. In this case, it was the AA side who was wrong.

Quote:

No, not my personal version, but the version from those who were there.

There is also a lot of evidence from 'people who were there' that is very much against her. You may call them liars, just as I doubt the word of many of her supporters. How do we know who was right and/or telling the truth? THE DNA gave us the answer! Now we know! AA loses!

Quote:

The only thing I am after, is the true story. And I do not understand why this seems to rile you up so much.

We HAVE the true story, yet you continue to deny its existence and play games with your same old he said she saids that have been proven wrong and rendered pointless and useless by the DNA. I didn't say so, the DNA said so. This is how we know. Those who do not accept it simply deny reality.

No, not my personal version, but the version from those who were there.

The proof is Anastasia's relatives who actually met her and knew her well, to know that she defiantly wasn't Anastasia. They have so much more evidence to back this up, than any of the AA supporters do with their belief of 'AA being Anastasia'.

Quote:

The only thing I am after, is the true story. And I do not understand why this seems to rile you up so much.

It's quite sad that you don't actually read the real information about Anna Anderson on Anna's website, or read the information we give you...Anna was Franziska has the true story that has been backed up and proven by the real Anastasia's family members and DNA. For some reason, it seems you refuse to believe in the DNA. Most of your information can't be proven, there's no major evidence to prove it. AA not being Anastasia has been proven so many times to be accurate. AA can't be Anastasia because she didn't know Russian, English and French well. AA was also declared mentally ill and sick. Anastasia never was mentally ill, or sick she was energetic and joyful. Plus, she made up information about 'Ernest visiting Russia in 1916' this wasn't even true..

Quote:

So why does the Malinovsky story have to be totally denied?

It's not true, it's inaccurate. Malinovsky didn't even know the real Anastasia. It's not good to get any resources from these people, especially if they didn't know the person AA claims to be. Of course, they would believe AA was Anastasia because they couldn't have know Anastasia well enough like Olga Alexandrovna, Grand duke Ernest and others to deny that AA wasn't Anastasia. They knew Anastasia very much.

Because Nurse Thea, nee Malinovsky, Chemnitz testified that AA told Thea that she was GD Anastasia, doesn't mean AA was GD Anastasia. All it means is that AA told her in the autumn of 1921.

Just because Thea was the recipient of AA's coversation doesn't make Thea the lier. She just testified what she heard.

AGRBear

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

So why does the Malinovsky story have to be totally denied?

Again: she did NOT hear anything in the fall of 1921. The date was either wrong ,and it happened after AA's claim began, or it was completely fabricated in cahoots with Fallows to help her cause with a promise of a payoff from Grandanor.The fact that she told the paper 1922 and then tried to change it and blame the error on the paper instead of herself is beyond suspicious and unbelievable.

Again, we must use LOGIC: AA's claim began in early 1922 when Clara said she looked like TATIANA. People came to see her under the premise she was TATIANA. She did nothing to deny being Tatiana until Bux declared her 'too short to be Tatiana.' Then she changed to, surprise, the only Grand Duchess who shared her height (though her face was much less like AN than Tatiana)

THAT is the REAL story. Now let's play 'which one of these things doesn't belong'- WHY, if all this elaborate commentary about her being AN had really happened months earlier, did nothing come of the claim? Most of all, WHY, if she was so descriptive about being "Anastasia" already, was she cowering under the sheets as "Tatiana" with no mention of "Anastasia" until AFTER the 'she's too short' visit from Bux? EASY! NOTHING HAPPENED in 1921, it all happened in 1922, and the earlier date is a desperate attempt by Fallows to try to legitimize the claim by making it look like the above paragraph (true story) wasn't the beginning. However, it was. It's even more certain and proved now that we know for sure AA was not AN because of the DNA. So, hang onto the same comment and post it over and over and over again, it's never, ever going to turn true, it's no contest against reality, because logical thinking, deduction, common sense and most of all science is against it. She either lied or got the date wrong. End of story.

It's really no more valid than this: In 1972 Sharon Schmitz confided to me that her uncle, Robert, as a guard in the Army, witnessed that Fort Knox was actually empty, and this is why it's so heavily guarded, so no one will know the country is broke (though I guess now we all know anyway!) But the point here is, just because someone said someone said something on a certain date does NOT make it a 'fact.'

It is simply amazing how hard you are trying to change the story of Thea Malinovsky. But you have nothing, absolutely nothing, to back up your stories with. And slandering the people involved is not helping your own credibility.
AA told Thea Malinovsky in the fall of 1921 that she was Anastasia. She was very upset, told her of the last night in Ekaterinburg and then suggested that they run away to join the Foreign Legion as nurses. It is not like she wanted the whole world to know who she was, she apparently wanted to be as anynomous as possible. That is probably also why she neither confirmed, nor denied Clara Peuthert's charge that she was Tatiana. The woman, whoever she was, was definitely no publicity seeker. And to try to place the confession to nurse Malinovsky in the fall of 1922, is simply useless. AA left Dalldorf in May of 1922 and never saw Malinovsky again. Somehow, I don't think you will ever get this point.
And again, I am still wondering why it is so important to you to neutralize miss Malinovsky?

Because Chat it did not happen. AA never claimed to be Anastasia until after she was turned down as Tatiana in 1922. Just like the Heinrich K. story is false, the entire escape story, the 'crossing of the Dnieper', and the alleged sighting of FS going to England. All these things were used to try to help AA's case but NEVER HAPPENED and now we have proof! AA was proven not to be AN. Unless you can discount the DNA tests, not only the intestines and hair but the 2007 bone fragments proving all bodies have been found, none of your used up and redundant decades old comments mean a thing! So keep repeating the same old quotes again and again they will never ever turn real! I'll be waiting for your proof that the DNA tests were wrong now.

Something I have just thought of. I wonder, that having been Catholic how much (if any) Latin would Franziska Schanzkowska have known? Latin being the root language of English I believe this question would be of interest with regards to the language argument.

As a Catholic, Franciszka would probably have known the liturgy by heart. My grandmother did, but I wouldn't say that "knew" Latin since she didn't know anything that wasn't part of a church service.

Tsarskoe, I am also a bit confused here. What do you mean "Latin being the root language of English"? English is not a romance language like French, Italian, Spanish. It developed from Saxon, Friesan and even Danish, following the waves of successive invasion/colonisation of Celtic Britain (original language Brythonic Celtic which is similar to Old Welsh) by people from Saxony, Jutland, the Vikings, etc. There are obviously words in English which come from Latin, just as there are words which come from French, or even Welsh but Latin was mainly used by the clergy and can hardly be described as the "root language" of English - you could more likely call German the root language of English, even though I believe it more closely resemblances Friesan than any of the others.

The point I was trying to make was that if Franziska was familiar with Latin than learning English words would have been far easier.

I know that many people simply had to memorize the Latin mass, I also know that in some countries the study of Latin was part of the curriculum in many schools. I wonder whether this was common place in German schools during the late 1800 and early 1900?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

As a Catholic, Franciszka would probably have known the liturgy by heart. My grandmother did, but I wouldn't say that "knew" Latin since she didn't know anything that wasn't part of a church service.

Tsarskoe, I am also a bit confused here. What do you mean "Latin being the root language of English"? English is not a romance language like French, Italian, Spanish. It developed from Saxon, Friesan and even Danish, following the waves of successive invasion/colonisation of Celtic Britain (original language Brythonic Celtic which is similar to Old Welsh) by people from Saxony, Jutland, the Vikings, etc. There are obviously words in English which come from Latin, just as there are words which come from French, or even Welsh but Latin was mainly used by the clergy and can hardly be described as the "root language" of English - you could more likely call German the root language of English, even though I believe it more closely resemblances Friesan than any of the others.

The Latin roots came into the English language with William the Conqueror. That is why we have so many words for the same thing but with nuances. Marriage, wedding. Pig and pork. The French language had a huge influence from 1066 onwards when it was the language of the court for some time. Any Latin influence seems not to have come from the Romans who, when you think about it, were in Britain for some 700 years (if my memory serves me correctly) but from the Normans who strangely, seemed to adopt French as their language very quickly.

I could give you a list of more than 500 words that Norwegian and English have in common, but it still took me 3-4 years of serious studies before I mastered English. At the age of 19-20, without a teacher and appropriate books, FS would in no way have been able to speak fluent English by 1926. Remember, her teacher said that she was intellectually rather limited. And Felix's writing was like that of a fourth grader according to Fritz Schuricht. Doesn't look like education was a primary concern of the Schanzkowski's.

Thank you! That is what I always try to say whenever he goes 'because you say so.' Maybe it will help that others know this too. It's not me, it's the reality of the DNA testing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

FS would in no way have been able to speak fluent English by 1926.

Neither was AA. She never mastered English, not even after coming to the US! Listen to her tapes and videos! Also people who met her as late as the 70's said she had to have her husband speak for her because she could only use German. The reality is, AA did not know English (as witnessed by Bux, Olga and Felix Y) and was taught it later (as witnessed by Dmitri L.) We will never know for sure how well she spoke it when she first came to the US because all we have are comments from supporters that may not be accurate. But we do have the proof of the recordings later in her life when it's clear she learned English as an adult and with very bad grammar and heavy accent. Remember the REAL Anastasia learned English as a child and spoke it to her mother every day. Since Alexandra spoke fluent proper English with a British accent, this is the way Anastasia would have learned it, sounding nothing like AA.

Since Chat likes 'eyewitness accounts of those who were there':

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence

From the 'Life and Tragedy of Alexandra' CHAPTER II childhoodShe had a French teacher, and though her accent was fair, she never became thoroughly at home in that language and always felt "cramped," as she said, in it, being at a loss for words. This hampered her later in Russia, where French was the official language at Court. English was, of course, her natural language. She spoke and wrote it to her brother and sisters, and later to her husband and children and to all those she knew well.

Sophie Bux on meeting AA:

I tried to attract the young woman's attention as I caressed her hair and speaking to her in English while using the types of phrases I would have used while speaking with the Grand Duchesses, but I did not refer to her by any name other than 'Darling'. She did not reply and I saw that she did not understand a word of what I had said, ....

Dmitri Leuchtenberg, the Duke's son

. When Mrs. Tschiakovsky arrived in Seeon she did not speak or understand Russian; she did not speak or understand English, except for what she learned from lessons taken in Lugano and in Obersdorf before coming to Seeon; she did not speak or understand French. She spoke only German with a north German accent. Grand Duchess Anastasia, on the contrary, spoke always Russian to her father, English to her mother, understood and spoke French and did not speak any German.

Olga A.

Mrs Anderson did not seem to understand a word of Russian or English, the two languages all the four sisters had spoken since babyhood. French came a little later, but German was never spoken in the family."

Felix Y:

"She does not understand a word of English and answers questions only in German."

(isn't it odd that a native Russian speaker would use only German and not Russian or English to a native Russian speaker with an Oxford education? It's because she wasn't AN but FS!)

"It was not the English of someone who had spoken English since childhood as Anastasia did." said the English writer, Michael Thornton, when he met her in 1960. "The accent was Germanic, the sentence structure German, the grammar hopeless."

Dave Howey, who met Anderson, by then Mrs. Manahan, when he was a cadet at a Virginia military academy in 1977, wrote of their meeting that "Her husband talked for her since she spoke very little English. Her only functional language was German,her Russian having been wiped out, we were told, as a result of the trauma from seeing her family gunned down in the cellar of a house in Ekaterinburg, Russia."

The Latin roots came into the English language with William the Conqueror. That is why we have so many words for the same thing but with nuances. Marriage, wedding. Pig and pork. The French language had a huge influence from 1066 onwards when it was the language of the court for some time. Any Latin influence seems not to have come from the Romans who, when you think about it, were in Britain for some 700 years (if my memory serves me correctly) but from the Normans who strangely, seemed to adopt French as their language very quickly.

Menarue, they arrived in 43AD and had completely left by 410 - so 350 years.

And again, I am still wondering why it is so important to you to neutralize miss Malinovsky?

Because it doesn't fit Annie's theory, Chat, that's why. The fact remains that whoeverAA was, people who nursed her at the very beginning - before the whole story broke - were of the opinion that she was "a lady" as opposed to a working class woman, a foreigner (although someone from Pomerania might be described as such by people in Berlin) and that she at least had some knowledge of more than one language. Of course none of this means she was Anastasia, so I don't know why people can't just accept it. The fact that is that whoever she was, she could still have told Nurse Malinovsky that she was Anastasia in 1921.